Pathway Summary
Consort map
Demographic information
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 731 | control, N = 371 | treatment, N = 361 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
age | 73 | 50.69 ± 12.64 (25 - 74) | 50.31 ± 13.37 (25 - 74) | 51.07 ± 12.01 (31 - 72) | 0.800 |
gender | 73 | 0.665 | |||
f | 51 (70%) | 25 (68%) | 26 (72%) | ||
m | 22 (30%) | 12 (32%) | 10 (28%) | ||
occupation | 73 | 0.909 | |||
day_training | 2 (2.7%) | 2 (5.4%) | 0 (0%) | ||
full_time | 7 (9.6%) | 4 (11%) | 3 (8.3%) | ||
homemaker | 6 (8.2%) | 3 (8.1%) | 3 (8.3%) | ||
other | 2 (2.7%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (5.6%) | ||
part_time | 14 (19%) | 7 (19%) | 7 (19%) | ||
retired | 15 (21%) | 7 (19%) | 8 (22%) | ||
self_employ | 2 (2.7%) | 1 (2.7%) | 1 (2.8%) | ||
student | 1 (1.4%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (2.8%) | ||
t_and_e | 2 (2.7%) | 1 (2.7%) | 1 (2.8%) | ||
unemploy | 22 (30%) | 12 (32%) | 10 (28%) | ||
marital | 73 | 0.814 | |||
cohabitation | 1 (1.4%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (2.8%) | ||
divore | 9 (12%) | 6 (16%) | 3 (8.3%) | ||
married | 15 (21%) | 7 (19%) | 8 (22%) | ||
none | 42 (58%) | 21 (57%) | 21 (58%) | ||
seperation | 3 (4.1%) | 2 (5.4%) | 1 (2.8%) | ||
widow | 3 (4.1%) | 1 (2.7%) | 2 (5.6%) | ||
edu | 73 | 0.979 | |||
bachelor | 21 (29%) | 9 (24%) | 12 (33%) | ||
diploma | 13 (18%) | 8 (22%) | 5 (14%) | ||
hd_ad | 3 (4.1%) | 2 (5.4%) | 1 (2.8%) | ||
postgraduate | 6 (8.2%) | 3 (8.1%) | 3 (8.3%) | ||
primary | 5 (6.8%) | 2 (5.4%) | 3 (8.3%) | ||
secondary_1_3 | 8 (11%) | 4 (11%) | 4 (11%) | ||
secondary_4_5 | 15 (21%) | 8 (22%) | 7 (19%) | ||
secondary_6_7 | 2 (2.7%) | 1 (2.7%) | 1 (2.8%) | ||
fam_income | 73 | 0.928 | |||
10001_12000 | 4 (5.5%) | 1 (2.7%) | 3 (8.3%) | ||
12001_14000 | 4 (5.5%) | 2 (5.4%) | 2 (5.6%) | ||
14001_16000 | 5 (6.8%) | 2 (5.4%) | 3 (8.3%) | ||
16001_18000 | 2 (2.7%) | 1 (2.7%) | 1 (2.8%) | ||
18001_20000 | 4 (5.5%) | 3 (8.1%) | 1 (2.8%) | ||
20001_above | 11 (15%) | 6 (16%) | 5 (14%) | ||
2001_4000 | 10 (14%) | 7 (19%) | 3 (8.3%) | ||
4001_6000 | 10 (14%) | 4 (11%) | 6 (17%) | ||
6001_8000 | 7 (9.6%) | 4 (11%) | 3 (8.3%) | ||
8001_10000 | 7 (9.6%) | 3 (8.1%) | 4 (11%) | ||
below_2000 | 9 (12%) | 4 (11%) | 5 (14%) | ||
medication | 73 | 63 (86%) | 33 (89%) | 30 (83%) | 0.515 |
onset_duration | 73 | 15.26 ± 11.49 (0 - 56) | 16.67 ± 12.76 (1 - 56) | 13.80 ± 9.99 (0 - 35) | 0.289 |
onset_age | 73 | 35.43 ± 14.10 (14 - 64) | 33.64 ± 13.39 (14 - 58) | 37.26 ± 14.76 (15 - 64) | 0.275 |
1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test | |||||
Measurement
Table
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 731 | control, N = 371 | treatment, N = 361 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | 73 | 3.12 ± 1.22 (1 - 5) | 3.11 ± 1.26 (1 - 5) | 3.14 ± 1.20 (1 - 5) | 0.915 |
recovery_stage_b | 73 | 17.99 ± 2.61 (9 - 23) | 17.95 ± 2.66 (9 - 23) | 18.03 ± 2.60 (13 - 23) | 0.895 |
ras_confidence | 73 | 30.41 ± 4.79 (19 - 43) | 29.89 ± 4.19 (19 - 40) | 30.94 ± 5.34 (20 - 43) | 0.351 |
ras_willingness | 73 | 12.10 ± 1.94 (7 - 15) | 11.92 ± 1.85 (9 - 15) | 12.28 ± 2.05 (7 - 15) | 0.434 |
ras_goal | 73 | 17.51 ± 2.97 (12 - 24) | 17.49 ± 2.93 (12 - 24) | 17.53 ± 3.06 (12 - 24) | 0.953 |
ras_reliance | 73 | 13.21 ± 2.81 (8 - 20) | 12.97 ± 2.58 (8 - 18) | 13.44 ± 3.05 (8 - 20) | 0.477 |
ras_domination | 73 | 9.99 ± 2.31 (3 - 15) | 10.51 ± 2.06 (6 - 15) | 9.44 ± 2.45 (3 - 14) | 0.048 |
symptom | 73 | 30.25 ± 9.82 (14 - 56) | 31.24 ± 9.60 (14 - 52) | 29.22 ± 10.07 (15 - 56) | 0.383 |
slof_work | 73 | 22.71 ± 4.88 (10 - 30) | 22.68 ± 4.44 (15 - 30) | 22.75 ± 5.37 (10 - 30) | 0.949 |
slof_relationship | 73 | 25.73 ± 5.99 (11 - 35) | 25.51 ± 6.17 (13 - 35) | 25.94 ± 5.88 (11 - 35) | 0.761 |
satisfaction | 73 | 20.66 ± 6.81 (5 - 32) | 19.22 ± 6.44 (5 - 29) | 22.14 ± 6.94 (5 - 32) | 0.066 |
mhc_emotional | 73 | 11.15 ± 3.84 (3 - 18) | 10.70 ± 3.41 (3 - 17) | 11.61 ± 4.24 (4 - 18) | 0.316 |
mhc_social | 73 | 14.96 ± 5.44 (6 - 30) | 15.16 ± 5.48 (7 - 30) | 14.75 ± 5.47 (6 - 26) | 0.749 |
mhc_psychological | 73 | 22.19 ± 6.07 (6 - 36) | 21.76 ± 5.69 (10 - 36) | 22.64 ± 6.48 (6 - 36) | 0.538 |
resilisnce | 73 | 16.58 ± 4.55 (6 - 27) | 16.32 ± 4.38 (6 - 24) | 16.83 ± 4.75 (7 - 27) | 0.636 |
social_provision | 73 | 13.66 ± 2.93 (5 - 20) | 13.30 ± 2.49 (8 - 20) | 14.03 ± 3.32 (5 - 20) | 0.290 |
els_value_living | 73 | 17.26 ± 2.93 (5 - 25) | 16.65 ± 2.34 (12 - 22) | 17.89 ± 3.34 (5 - 25) | 0.070 |
els_life_fulfill | 73 | 12.77 ± 3.30 (4 - 20) | 11.81 ± 3.04 (5 - 17) | 13.75 ± 3.32 (4 - 20) | 0.011 |
els | 73 | 30.03 ± 5.60 (9 - 45) | 28.46 ± 4.44 (20 - 36) | 31.64 ± 6.25 (9 - 45) | 0.014 |
social_connect | 73 | 27.15 ± 9.52 (8 - 48) | 27.95 ± 8.31 (8 - 45) | 26.33 ± 10.68 (8 - 48) | 0.473 |
shs_agency | 73 | 14.44 ± 4.92 (3 - 24) | 13.84 ± 4.52 (3 - 21) | 15.06 ± 5.29 (3 - 24) | 0.293 |
shs_pathway | 73 | 16.55 ± 3.96 (4 - 24) | 16.11 ± 3.81 (8 - 24) | 17.00 ± 4.11 (4 - 23) | 0.339 |
shs | 73 | 30.99 ± 8.41 (7 - 47) | 29.95 ± 7.97 (13 - 45) | 32.06 ± 8.83 (7 - 47) | 0.287 |
esteem | 73 | 12.67 ± 1.50 (10 - 18) | 12.86 ± 1.55 (10 - 18) | 12.47 ± 1.44 (10 - 16) | 0.267 |
mlq_search | 73 | 14.93 ± 3.31 (3 - 21) | 14.84 ± 3.09 (6 - 21) | 15.03 ± 3.57 (3 - 21) | 0.809 |
mlq_presence | 73 | 13.47 ± 4.11 (3 - 21) | 13.41 ± 3.50 (5 - 20) | 13.53 ± 4.70 (3 - 21) | 0.900 |
mlq | 73 | 28.40 ± 6.60 (6 - 42) | 28.24 ± 5.79 (12 - 40) | 28.56 ± 7.42 (6 - 42) | 0.841 |
empower | 73 | 19.49 ± 4.09 (6 - 28) | 19.08 ± 3.71 (11 - 24) | 19.92 ± 4.46 (6 - 28) | 0.387 |
ismi_resistance | 73 | 14.60 ± 2.64 (5 - 20) | 14.32 ± 2.21 (11 - 19) | 14.89 ± 3.03 (5 - 20) | 0.365 |
ismi_discrimation | 73 | 11.30 ± 3.19 (5 - 19) | 12.22 ± 2.79 (5 - 18) | 10.36 ± 3.33 (5 - 19) | 0.012 |
sss_affective | 73 | 9.95 ± 3.80 (3 - 18) | 10.43 ± 3.44 (3 - 18) | 9.44 ± 4.13 (3 - 18) | 0.270 |
sss_behavior | 73 | 9.60 ± 3.95 (3 - 18) | 10.27 ± 3.96 (3 - 18) | 8.92 ± 3.86 (3 - 18) | 0.144 |
sss_cognitive | 73 | 8.30 ± 3.95 (3 - 18) | 8.59 ± 4.15 (3 - 18) | 8.00 ± 3.78 (3 - 18) | 0.524 |
sss | 73 | 27.85 ± 10.85 (9 - 54) | 29.30 ± 10.41 (9 - 54) | 26.36 ± 11.23 (9 - 54) | 0.250 |
1Mean ± SD (Range) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test | |||||
Plot
Data analysis
Table
Group | Characteristic | Beta | SE1 | 95% CI1 | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | (Intercept) | 3.11 | 0.199 | 2.72, 3.50 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.031 | 0.284 | -0.525, 0.587 | 0.914 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.161 | 0.288 | -0.403, 0.725 | 0.578 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.185 | 0.411 | -0.622, 0.991 | 0.655 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.013 | ||||
recovery_stage_b | (Intercept) | 17.9 | 0.440 | 17.1, 18.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.082 | 0.626 | -1.15, 1.31 | 0.896 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.384 | 0.603 | -1.56, 0.798 | 0.527 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.912 | 0.863 | -0.779, 2.60 | 0.295 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.012 | ||||
ras_confidence | (Intercept) | 29.9 | 0.826 | 28.3, 31.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.05 | 1.176 | -1.25, 3.36 | 0.373 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.316 | 0.817 | -1.29, 1.92 | 0.700 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.301 | 1.170 | -1.99, 2.59 | 0.798 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.015 | ||||
ras_willingness | (Intercept) | 11.9 | 0.326 | 11.3, 12.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.359 | 0.464 | -0.551, 1.27 | 0.442 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.630 | 0.320 | -1.26, -0.003 | 0.055 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.468 | 0.458 | -0.429, 1.37 | 0.312 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.029 | ||||
ras_goal | (Intercept) | 17.5 | 0.513 | 16.5, 18.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.041 | 0.730 | -1.39, 1.47 | 0.955 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.913 | 0.550 | -1.99, 0.166 | 0.104 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.53 | 0.788 | -0.017, 3.07 | 0.059 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.022 | ||||
ras_reliance | (Intercept) | 13.0 | 0.450 | 12.1, 13.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.471 | 0.641 | -0.784, 1.73 | 0.464 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.453 | 0.407 | -0.345, 1.25 | 0.272 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.615 | 0.583 | -0.528, 1.76 | 0.297 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.035 | ||||
ras_domination | (Intercept) | 10.5 | 0.369 | 9.79, 11.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.07 | 0.525 | -2.10, -0.040 | 0.045 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.633 | 0.470 | -1.55, 0.289 | 0.185 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.44 | 0.673 | 0.117, 2.76 | 0.038 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.038 | ||||
symptom | (Intercept) | 31.2 | 1.613 | 28.1, 34.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -2.02 | 2.298 | -6.52, 2.48 | 0.382 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.060 | 1.183 | -2.26, 2.38 | 0.960 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.700 | 1.694 | -4.02, 2.62 | 0.681 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.014 | ||||
slof_work | (Intercept) | 22.7 | 0.809 | 21.1, 24.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.074 | 1.153 | -2.18, 2.33 | 0.949 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.723 | 0.618 | -1.93, 0.489 | 0.249 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.568 | 0.886 | -2.30, 1.17 | 0.525 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.010 | ||||
slof_relationship | (Intercept) | 25.5 | 0.979 | 23.6, 27.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.431 | 1.393 | -2.30, 3.16 | 0.758 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -1.05 | 0.898 | -2.81, 0.706 | 0.247 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.648 | 1.286 | -1.87, 3.17 | 0.617 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.007 | ||||
satisfaction | (Intercept) | 19.2 | 1.139 | 17.0, 21.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 2.92 | 1.622 | -0.256, 6.10 | 0.075 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.748 | 1.181 | -1.57, 3.06 | 0.529 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.20 | 1.691 | -4.51, 2.11 | 0.482 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.034 | ||||
mhc_emotional | (Intercept) | 10.7 | 0.626 | 9.48, 11.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.908 | 0.891 | -0.837, 2.65 | 0.311 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.484 | 0.541 | -0.576, 1.54 | 0.376 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.15 | 0.775 | -2.67, 0.372 | 0.147 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.010 | ||||
mhc_social | (Intercept) | 15.2 | 0.928 | 13.3, 17.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.412 | 1.322 | -3.00, 2.18 | 0.756 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.08 | 0.903 | -0.687, 2.85 | 0.237 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.59 | 1.293 | -4.12, 0.946 | 0.226 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.012 | ||||
mhc_psychological | (Intercept) | 21.8 | 1.048 | 19.7, 23.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.882 | 1.493 | -2.04, 3.81 | 0.556 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.643 | 1.022 | -1.36, 2.65 | 0.532 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.66 | 1.463 | -4.53, 1.21 | 0.263 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.005 | ||||
resilisnce | (Intercept) | 16.3 | 0.715 | 14.9, 17.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.509 | 1.018 | -1.49, 2.50 | 0.618 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.160 | 0.719 | -1.25, 1.57 | 0.825 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.390 | 1.030 | -1.63, 2.41 | 0.707 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.007 | ||||
social_provision | (Intercept) | 13.3 | 0.493 | 12.3, 14.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.730 | 0.702 | -0.645, 2.11 | 0.301 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.937 | 0.555 | -2.02, 0.150 | 0.098 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.913 | 0.794 | -0.643, 2.47 | 0.256 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.041 | ||||
els_value_living | (Intercept) | 16.6 | 0.479 | 15.7, 17.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.24 | 0.682 | -0.097, 2.58 | 0.073 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.276 | 0.449 | -0.605, 1.16 | 0.543 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.196 | 0.643 | -1.46, 1.06 | 0.762 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.040 | ||||
els_life_fulfill | (Intercept) | 11.8 | 0.507 | 10.8, 12.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.94 | 0.723 | 0.523, 3.36 | 0.009 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.917 | 0.487 | -0.039, 1.87 | 0.067 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.903 | 0.698 | -2.27, 0.465 | 0.203 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.074 | ||||
els | (Intercept) | 28.5 | 0.886 | 26.7, 30.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 3.18 | 1.262 | 0.706, 5.65 | 0.014 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.17 | 0.770 | -0.343, 2.67 | 0.137 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.07 | 1.103 | -3.23, 1.09 | 0.339 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.069 | ||||
social_connect | (Intercept) | 27.9 | 1.567 | 24.9, 31.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.61 | 2.232 | -5.99, 2.76 | 0.472 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.759 | 1.145 | -1.48, 3.00 | 0.511 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.945 | 1.639 | -4.16, 2.27 | 0.567 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.011 | ||||
shs_agency | (Intercept) | 13.8 | 0.811 | 12.2, 15.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.22 | 1.154 | -1.04, 3.48 | 0.295 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.290 | 0.772 | -1.22, 1.80 | 0.709 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.455 | 1.105 | -1.71, 2.62 | 0.683 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.022 | ||||
shs_pathway | (Intercept) | 16.1 | 0.648 | 14.8, 17.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.892 | 0.923 | -0.918, 2.70 | 0.337 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.372 | 0.590 | -0.784, 1.53 | 0.532 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.390 | 0.844 | -2.05, 1.27 | 0.647 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.010 | ||||
shs | (Intercept) | 29.9 | 1.375 | 27.3, 32.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 2.11 | 1.959 | -1.73, 5.95 | 0.285 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.662 | 1.233 | -1.75, 3.08 | 0.594 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.074 | 1.766 | -3.39, 3.54 | 0.967 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.018 | ||||
esteem | (Intercept) | 12.9 | 0.232 | 12.4, 13.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.393 | 0.330 | -1.04, 0.254 | 0.237 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.153 | 0.350 | -0.533, 0.839 | 0.664 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.179 | 0.501 | -0.803, 1.16 | 0.723 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.021 | ||||
mlq_search | (Intercept) | 14.8 | 0.554 | 13.8, 15.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.190 | 0.789 | -1.36, 1.74 | 0.810 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.395 | 0.662 | -1.69, 0.904 | 0.554 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.360 | 0.948 | -1.50, 2.22 | 0.706 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.004 | ||||
mlq_presence | (Intercept) | 13.4 | 0.664 | 12.1, 14.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.122 | 0.945 | -1.73, 1.97 | 0.897 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.082 | 0.733 | -1.52, 1.35 | 0.911 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.208 | 1.050 | -1.85, 2.27 | 0.844 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.001 | ||||
mlq | (Intercept) | 28.2 | 1.104 | 26.1, 30.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.312 | 1.572 | -2.77, 3.39 | 0.843 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.477 | 1.253 | -2.93, 1.98 | 0.705 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.561 | 1.795 | -2.96, 4.08 | 0.756 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.002 | ||||
empower | (Intercept) | 19.1 | 0.658 | 17.8, 20.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.836 | 0.937 | -1.00, 2.67 | 0.375 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.252 | 0.581 | -1.39, 0.886 | 0.667 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.414 | 0.831 | -2.04, 1.22 | 0.621 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.011 | ||||
ismi_resistance | (Intercept) | 14.3 | 0.411 | 13.5, 15.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.565 | 0.586 | -0.584, 1.71 | 0.338 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.174 | 0.550 | -0.904, 1.25 | 0.753 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.305 | 0.787 | -1.85, 1.24 | 0.700 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.009 | ||||
ismi_discrimation | (Intercept) | 12.2 | 0.515 | 11.2, 13.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.86 | 0.733 | -3.29, -0.419 | 0.013 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.509 | 0.500 | -1.49, 0.470 | 0.314 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.932 | 0.715 | -0.470, 2.33 | 0.200 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.061 | ||||
sss_affective | (Intercept) | 10.4 | 0.606 | 9.25, 11.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.988 | 0.862 | -2.68, 0.702 | 0.255 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.226 | 0.504 | -0.762, 1.21 | 0.656 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.09 | 0.722 | -2.51, 0.324 | 0.138 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.040 | ||||
sss_behavior | (Intercept) | 10.3 | 0.619 | 9.06, 11.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.35 | 0.881 | -3.08, 0.373 | 0.128 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.249 | 0.616 | -1.46, 0.959 | 0.688 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.480 | 0.883 | -2.21, 1.25 | 0.590 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.044 | ||||
sss_cognitive | (Intercept) | 8.59 | 0.638 | 7.34, 9.84 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.595 | 0.908 | -2.37, 1.19 | 0.515 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.03 | 0.508 | 0.031, 2.02 | 0.050 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.83 | 0.728 | -3.25, -0.399 | 0.016 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.037 | ||||
sss | (Intercept) | 29.3 | 1.730 | 25.9, 32.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -2.94 | 2.464 | -7.77, 1.89 | 0.237 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.08 | 1.300 | -1.47, 3.62 | 0.413 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -3.40 | 1.862 | -7.05, 0.250 | 0.075 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.043 | ||||
1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval | |||||
Text
recovery_stage_a
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.34) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.11 (95% CI [2.72, 3.50], t(106) = 15.61, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.53, 0.59], t(106) = 0.11, p = 0.914; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.48])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.72], t(106) = 0.56, p = 0.576; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.60])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.62, 0.99], t(106) = 0.45, p = 0.654; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.82])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
recovery_stage_b
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.42) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.95 (95% CI [17.08, 18.81], t(106) = 40.81, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-1.15, 1.31], t(106) = 0.13, p = 0.896; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.49])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.38, 95% CI [-1.56, 0.80], t(106) = -0.64, p = 0.524; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.30])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.91, 95% CI [-0.78, 2.60], t(106) = 1.06, p = 0.290; Std. beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.98])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_confidence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.89 (95% CI [28.27, 31.51], t(106) = 36.19, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.05, 95% CI [-1.25, 3.36], t(106) = 0.89, p = 0.371; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.67])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-1.29, 1.92], t(106) = 0.39, p = 0.699; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.38])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-1.99, 2.59], t(106) = 0.26, p = 0.797; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.52])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_willingness
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.92 (95% CI [11.28, 12.56], t(106) = 36.54, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.55, 1.27], t(106) = 0.77, p = 0.440; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.64])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.63, 95% CI [-1.26, -3.34e-03], t(106) = -1.97, p = 0.049; Std. beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-0.63, -1.67e-03])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.47, 95% CI [-0.43, 1.37], t(106) = 1.02, p = 0.307; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.69])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_goal
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.49 (95% CI [16.48, 18.49], t(106) = 34.11, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-1.39, 1.47], t(106) = 0.06, p = 0.955; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.47])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.91, 95% CI [-1.99, 0.17], t(106) = -1.66, p = 0.097; Std. beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.05])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.53, 95% CI [-0.02, 3.07], t(106) = 1.94, p = 0.053; Std. beta = 0.48, 95% CI [-5.49e-03, 0.97])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_reliance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.97 (95% CI [12.09, 13.85], t(106) = 28.84, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.47, 95% CI [-0.78, 1.73], t(106) = 0.74, p = 0.462; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.61])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.45, 95% CI [-0.35, 1.25], t(106) = 1.11, p = 0.266; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.44])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.62, 95% CI [-0.53, 1.76], t(106) = 1.05, p = 0.292; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.62])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_domination
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.52) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.51 (95% CI [9.79, 11.24], t(106) = 28.51, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.07, 95% CI [-2.10, -0.04], t(106) = -2.04, p = 0.042; Std. beta = -0.48, 95% CI [-0.93, -0.02])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.63, 95% CI [-1.55, 0.29], t(106) = -1.35, p = 0.178; Std. beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-0.69, 0.13])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.44, 95% CI [0.12, 2.76], t(106) = 2.13, p = 0.033; Std. beta = 0.64, 95% CI [0.05, 1.23])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
symptom
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.85) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 31.24 (95% CI [28.08, 34.41], t(106) = 19.36, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.02, 95% CI [-6.52, 2.48], t(106) = -0.88, p = 0.379; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.25])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-2.26, 2.38], t(106) = 0.05, p = 0.960; Std. beta = 6.04e-03, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.24])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.70, 95% CI [-4.02, 2.62], t(106) = -0.41, p = 0.679; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.26])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_work
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.84) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.68 (95% CI [21.09, 24.26], t(106) = 28.01, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-2.18, 2.33], t(106) = 0.06, p = 0.949; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.47])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.72, 95% CI [-1.93, 0.49], t(106) = -1.17, p = 0.242; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.10])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.57, 95% CI [-2.30, 1.17], t(106) = -0.64, p = 0.521; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.24])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_relationship
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.24e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 25.51 (95% CI [23.60, 27.43], t(106) = 26.07, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.43, 95% CI [-2.30, 3.16], t(106) = 0.31, p = 0.757; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.54])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.05, 95% CI [-2.81, 0.71], t(106) = -1.17, p = 0.241; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.12])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.65, 95% CI [-1.87, 3.17], t(106) = 0.50, p = 0.614; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.54])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
satisfaction
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.22 (95% CI [16.98, 21.45], t(106) = 16.87, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.92, 95% CI [-0.26, 6.10], t(106) = 1.80, p = 0.072; Std. beta = 0.42, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.87])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.75, 95% CI [-1.57, 3.06], t(106) = 0.63, p = 0.526; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.44])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.20, 95% CI [-4.51, 2.11], t(106) = -0.71, p = 0.478; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.30])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_emotional
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.72e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.70 (95% CI [9.48, 11.93], t(106) = 17.11, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.91, 95% CI [-0.84, 2.65], t(106) = 1.02, p = 0.308; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.72])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.48, 95% CI [-0.58, 1.54], t(106) = 0.90, p = 0.371; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.42])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.15, 95% CI [-2.67, 0.37], t(106) = -1.48, p = 0.139; Std. beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-0.72, 0.10])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_social
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.16 (95% CI [13.34, 16.98], t(106) = 16.34, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.41, 95% CI [-3.00, 2.18], t(106) = -0.31, p = 0.755; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.39])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.08, 95% CI [-0.69, 2.85], t(106) = 1.20, p = 0.230; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.52])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.59, 95% CI [-4.12, 0.95], t(106) = -1.23, p = 0.219; Std. beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-0.75, 0.17])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_psychological
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.59e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.76 (95% CI [19.70, 23.81], t(106) = 20.75, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.88, 95% CI [-2.04, 3.81], t(106) = 0.59, p = 0.555; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.60])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.64, 95% CI [-1.36, 2.65], t(106) = 0.63, p = 0.529; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.41])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.66, 95% CI [-4.53, 1.21], t(106) = -1.13, p = 0.257; Std. beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-0.71, 0.19])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
resilisnce
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.42e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.32 (95% CI [14.92, 17.73], t(106) = 22.84, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.51, 95% CI [-1.49, 2.50], t(106) = 0.50, p = 0.617; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.58])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-1.25, 1.57], t(106) = 0.22, p = 0.824; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.36])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-1.63, 2.41], t(106) = 0.38, p = 0.705; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.56])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_provision
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.64) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.30 (95% CI [12.33, 14.26], t(106) = 26.98, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.73, 95% CI [-0.65, 2.11], t(106) = 1.04, p = 0.298; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.69])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.94, 95% CI [-2.02, 0.15], t(106) = -1.69, p = 0.091; Std. beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.05])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.91, 95% CI [-0.64, 2.47], t(106) = 1.15, p = 0.250; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.81])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_value_living
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.65 (95% CI [15.71, 17.59], t(106) = 34.75, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.24, 95% CI [-0.10, 2.58], t(106) = 1.82, p = 0.069; Std. beta = 0.42, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.86])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.60, 1.16], t(106) = 0.61, p = 0.539; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.39])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-1.46, 1.06], t(106) = -0.31, p = 0.760; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.36])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_life_fulfill
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.07. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.81 (95% CI [10.82, 12.81], t(106) = 23.27, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.94, 95% CI [0.52, 3.36], t(106) = 2.68, p = 0.007; Std. beta = 0.61, 95% CI [0.16, 1.05])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.92, 95% CI [-0.04, 1.87], t(106) = 1.88, p = 0.060; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.59])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.90, 95% CI [-2.27, 0.47], t(106) = -1.29, p = 0.196; Std. beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-0.71, 0.15])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.80) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.07. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.46 (95% CI [26.72, 30.20], t(106) = 32.11, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 3.18, 95% CI [0.71, 5.65], t(106) = 2.52, p = 0.012; Std. beta = 0.57, 95% CI [0.13, 1.01])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.17, 95% CI [-0.34, 2.67], t(106) = 1.51, p = 0.130; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.48])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.07, 95% CI [-3.23, 1.09], t(106) = -0.97, p = 0.334; Std. beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.58, 0.20])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_connect
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.85) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.95 (95% CI [24.87, 31.02], t(106) = 17.83, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.61, 95% CI [-5.99, 2.76], t(106) = -0.72, p = 0.470; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.62, 0.28])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.76, 95% CI [-1.48, 3.00], t(106) = 0.66, p = 0.507; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.31])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.95, 95% CI [-4.16, 2.27], t(106) = -0.58, p = 0.564; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.23])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_agency
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.84 (95% CI [12.25, 15.43], t(106) = 17.07, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.22, 95% CI [-1.04, 3.48], t(106) = 1.05, p = 0.291; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.71])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-1.22, 1.80], t(106) = 0.38, p = 0.707; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.37])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.46, 95% CI [-1.71, 2.62], t(106) = 0.41, p = 0.681; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.53])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_pathway
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.11 (95% CI [14.84, 17.38], t(106) = 24.84, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.89, 95% CI [-0.92, 2.70], t(106) = 0.97, p = 0.334; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.69])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.37, 95% CI [-0.78, 1.53], t(106) = 0.63, p = 0.528; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.39])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-2.05, 1.27], t(106) = -0.46, p = 0.644; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.32])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.95 (95% CI [27.25, 32.64], t(106) = 21.77, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.11, 95% CI [-1.73, 5.95], t(106) = 1.08, p = 0.281; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.72])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.66, 95% CI [-1.75, 3.08], t(106) = 0.54, p = 0.591; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.37])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-3.39, 3.54], t(106) = 0.04, p = 0.967; Std. beta = 8.90e-03, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.43])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
esteem
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.27) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.86 (95% CI [12.41, 13.32], t(106) = 55.52, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-1.04, 0.25], t(106) = -1.19, p = 0.234; Std. beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-0.75, 0.18])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.53, 0.84], t(106) = 0.44, p = 0.662; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.60])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.80, 1.16], t(106) = 0.36, p = 0.721; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.58, 0.83])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_search
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.57) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.83e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.84 (95% CI [13.75, 15.92], t(106) = 26.78, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-1.36, 1.74], t(106) = 0.24, p = 0.810; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.52])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-1.69, 0.90], t(106) = -0.60, p = 0.551; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.27])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-1.50, 2.22], t(106) = 0.38, p = 0.704; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.66])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_presence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.64) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.44e-04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.41 (95% CI [12.10, 14.71], t(106) = 20.20, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-1.73, 1.97], t(106) = 0.13, p = 0.897; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.50])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-1.52, 1.35], t(106) = -0.11, p = 0.911; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.34])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-1.85, 2.27], t(106) = 0.20, p = 0.843; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.57])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.62) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.05e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.24 (95% CI [26.08, 30.41], t(106) = 25.59, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-2.77, 3.39], t(106) = 0.20, p = 0.843; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.51])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.48, 95% CI [-2.93, 1.98], t(106) = -0.38, p = 0.703; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.30])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.56, 95% CI [-2.96, 4.08], t(106) = 0.31, p = 0.755; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.61])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
empower
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.08 (95% CI [17.79, 20.37], t(106) = 29.01, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.84, 95% CI [-1.00, 2.67], t(106) = 0.89, p = 0.372; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.67])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-1.39, 0.89], t(106) = -0.43, p = 0.665; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.22])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.41, 95% CI [-2.04, 1.22], t(106) = -0.50, p = 0.619; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.30])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_resistance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.45) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.24e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.32 (95% CI [13.52, 15.13], t(106) = 34.82, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.56, 95% CI [-0.58, 1.71], t(106) = 0.96, p = 0.335; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.69])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.90, 1.25], t(106) = 0.32, p = 0.752; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.50])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-1.85, 1.24], t(106) = -0.39, p = 0.698; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.74, 0.50])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_discrimation
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.06. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.22 (95% CI [11.21, 13.22], t(106) = 23.74, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.86, 95% CI [-3.29, -0.42], t(106) = -2.53, p = 0.011; Std. beta = -0.58, 95% CI [-1.03, -0.13])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.51, 95% CI [-1.49, 0.47], t(106) = -1.02, p = 0.308; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.15])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.93, 95% CI [-0.47, 2.33], t(106) = 1.30, p = 0.193; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.73])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_affective
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.81) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.43 (95% CI [9.25, 11.62], t(106) = 17.22, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.99, 95% CI [-2.68, 0.70], t(106) = -1.15, p = 0.252; Std. beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-0.71, 0.19])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.76, 1.21], t(106) = 0.45, p = 0.654; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.32])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.09, 95% CI [-2.51, 0.32], t(106) = -1.51, p = 0.131; Std. beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.09])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_behavior
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.27 (95% CI [9.06, 11.48], t(106) = 16.60, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.35, 95% CI [-3.08, 0.37], t(106) = -1.54, p = 0.124; Std. beta = -0.35, 95% CI [-0.80, 0.10])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-1.46, 0.96], t(106) = -0.40, p = 0.686; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.25])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.48, 95% CI [-2.21, 1.25], t(106) = -0.54, p = 0.587; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.57, 0.32])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_cognitive
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.83) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.59 (95% CI [7.34, 9.84], t(106) = 13.48, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.59, 95% CI [-2.37, 1.19], t(106) = -0.65, p = 0.513; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.62, 0.31])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.03, 95% CI [0.03, 2.02], t(106) = 2.02, p = 0.043; Std. beta = 0.27, 95% CI [8.00e-03, 0.53])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.83, 95% CI [-3.25, -0.40], t(106) = -2.51, p = 0.012; Std. beta = -0.47, 95% CI [-0.84, -0.10])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.85) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.30 (95% CI [25.91, 32.69], t(106) = 16.93, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.94, 95% CI [-7.77, 1.89], t(106) = -1.19, p = 0.233; Std. beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-0.72, 0.18])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.08, 95% CI [-1.47, 3.62], t(106) = 0.83, p = 0.408; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.34])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.40, 95% CI [-7.05, 0.25], t(106) = -1.83, p = 0.068; Std. beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.02])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
Likelihood ratio tests
outcome | model | npar | AIC | BIC | logLik | deviance | Chisq | Df | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | null | 3 | 359.919 | 368.075 | -176.960 | 353.919 | |||
recovery_stage_a | random | 6 | 364.077 | 380.388 | -176.038 | 352.077 | 1.843 | 3 | 0.606 |
recovery_stage_b | null | 3 | 534.462 | 542.618 | -264.231 | 528.462 | |||
recovery_stage_b | random | 6 | 538.867 | 555.178 | -263.434 | 526.867 | 1.595 | 3 | 0.661 |
ras_confidence | null | 3 | 654.955 | 663.111 | -324.478 | 648.955 | |||
ras_confidence | random | 6 | 659.197 | 675.508 | -323.598 | 647.197 | 1.759 | 3 | 0.624 |
ras_willingness | null | 3 | 449.736 | 457.891 | -221.868 | 443.736 | |||
ras_willingness | random | 6 | 450.465 | 466.776 | -219.233 | 438.465 | 5.271 | 3 | 0.153 |
ras_goal | null | 3 | 556.472 | 564.628 | -275.236 | 550.472 | |||
ras_goal | random | 6 | 557.990 | 574.301 | -272.995 | 545.990 | 4.483 | 3 | 0.214 |
ras_reliance | null | 3 | 519.528 | 527.684 | -256.764 | 513.528 | |||
ras_reliance | random | 6 | 516.812 | 533.123 | -252.406 | 504.812 | 8.716 | 3 | 0.033 |
ras_domination | null | 3 | 495.579 | 503.735 | -244.790 | 489.579 | |||
ras_domination | random | 6 | 495.289 | 511.600 | -241.645 | 483.289 | 6.290 | 3 | 0.098 |
symptom | null | 3 | 782.726 | 790.882 | -388.363 | 776.726 | |||
symptom | random | 6 | 787.433 | 803.744 | -387.717 | 775.433 | 1.293 | 3 | 0.731 |
slof_work | null | 3 | 635.402 | 643.558 | -314.701 | 629.402 | |||
slof_work | random | 6 | 635.993 | 652.304 | -311.996 | 623.993 | 5.410 | 3 | 0.144 |
slof_relationship | null | 3 | 687.662 | 695.818 | -340.831 | 681.662 | |||
slof_relationship | random | 6 | 691.855 | 708.166 | -339.927 | 679.855 | 1.807 | 3 | 0.613 |
satisfaction | null | 3 | 731.785 | 739.941 | -362.893 | 725.785 | |||
satisfaction | random | 6 | 734.421 | 750.732 | -361.211 | 722.421 | 3.364 | 3 | 0.339 |
mhc_emotional | null | 3 | 584.086 | 592.242 | -289.043 | 578.086 | |||
mhc_emotional | random | 6 | 587.345 | 603.656 | -287.673 | 575.345 | 2.741 | 3 | 0.433 |
mhc_social | null | 3 | 680.399 | 688.555 | -337.200 | 674.399 | |||
mhc_social | random | 6 | 684.139 | 700.450 | -336.069 | 672.139 | 2.261 | 3 | 0.520 |
mhc_psychological | null | 3 | 707.018 | 715.173 | -350.509 | 701.018 | |||
mhc_psychological | random | 6 | 711.559 | 727.870 | -349.779 | 699.559 | 1.459 | 3 | 0.692 |
resilisnce | null | 3 | 623.043 | 631.199 | -308.522 | 617.043 | |||
resilisnce | random | 6 | 627.996 | 644.307 | -307.998 | 615.996 | 1.047 | 3 | 0.790 |
social_provision | null | 3 | 551.544 | 559.699 | -272.772 | 545.544 | |||
social_provision | random | 6 | 552.353 | 568.664 | -270.177 | 540.353 | 5.190 | 3 | 0.158 |
els_value_living | null | 3 | 531.070 | 539.226 | -262.535 | 525.070 | |||
els_value_living | random | 6 | 533.369 | 549.680 | -260.684 | 521.369 | 3.702 | 3 | 0.296 |
els_life_fulfill | null | 3 | 551.319 | 559.474 | -272.659 | 545.319 | |||
els_life_fulfill | random | 6 | 548.008 | 564.319 | -268.004 | 536.008 | 9.310 | 3 | 0.025 |
els | null | 3 | 667.521 | 675.676 | -330.760 | 661.521 | |||
els | random | 6 | 665.698 | 682.009 | -326.849 | 653.698 | 7.823 | 3 | 0.050 |
social_connect | null | 3 | 775.891 | 784.047 | -384.946 | 769.891 | |||
social_connect | random | 6 | 780.649 | 796.960 | -384.324 | 768.649 | 1.243 | 3 | 0.743 |
shs_agency | null | 3 | 648.882 | 657.038 | -321.441 | 642.882 | |||
shs_agency | random | 6 | 652.323 | 668.634 | -320.161 | 640.323 | 2.560 | 3 | 0.465 |
shs_pathway | null | 3 | 594.223 | 602.379 | -294.112 | 588.223 | |||
shs_pathway | random | 6 | 599.024 | 615.335 | -293.512 | 587.024 | 1.199 | 3 | 0.753 |
shs | null | 3 | 762.375 | 770.531 | -378.188 | 756.375 | |||
shs | random | 6 | 766.436 | 782.747 | -377.218 | 754.436 | 1.939 | 3 | 0.585 |
esteem | null | 3 | 396.436 | 404.592 | -195.218 | 390.436 | |||
esteem | random | 6 | 399.989 | 416.300 | -193.995 | 387.989 | 2.447 | 3 | 0.485 |
mlq_search | null | 3 | 577.032 | 585.188 | -285.516 | 571.032 | |||
mlq_search | random | 6 | 582.490 | 598.801 | -285.245 | 570.490 | 0.542 | 3 | 0.910 |
mlq_presence | null | 3 | 611.830 | 619.986 | -302.915 | 605.830 | |||
mlq_presence | random | 6 | 617.742 | 634.053 | -302.871 | 605.742 | 0.088 | 3 | 0.993 |
mlq | null | 3 | 727.820 | 735.975 | -360.910 | 721.820 | |||
mlq | random | 6 | 733.554 | 749.865 | -360.777 | 721.554 | 0.266 | 3 | 0.966 |
empower | null | 3 | 596.189 | 604.345 | -295.095 | 590.189 | |||
empower | random | 6 | 600.058 | 616.369 | -294.029 | 588.058 | 2.131 | 3 | 0.546 |
ismi_resistance | null | 3 | 517.504 | 525.660 | -255.752 | 511.504 | |||
ismi_resistance | random | 6 | 522.544 | 538.855 | -255.272 | 510.544 | 0.960 | 3 | 0.811 |
ismi_discrimation | null | 3 | 552.690 | 560.845 | -273.345 | 546.690 | |||
ismi_discrimation | random | 6 | 551.859 | 568.170 | -269.929 | 539.859 | 6.831 | 3 | 0.077 |
sss_affective | null | 3 | 576.784 | 584.940 | -285.392 | 570.784 | |||
sss_affective | random | 6 | 577.339 | 593.650 | -282.670 | 565.339 | 5.445 | 3 | 0.142 |
sss_behavior | null | 3 | 593.639 | 601.795 | -293.820 | 587.639 | |||
sss_behavior | random | 6 | 594.989 | 611.300 | -291.494 | 582.989 | 4.651 | 3 | 0.199 |
sss_cognitive | null | 3 | 587.331 | 595.487 | -290.666 | 581.331 | |||
sss_cognitive | random | 6 | 585.709 | 602.020 | -286.854 | 573.709 | 7.623 | 3 | 0.054 |
sss | null | 3 | 805.301 | 813.456 | -399.650 | 799.301 | |||
sss | random | 6 | 804.949 | 821.260 | -396.474 | 792.949 | 6.352 | 3 | 0.096 |
Post hoc analysis
Table
outcome | time | control | treatment | between | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n | estimate | within es | n | estimate | within es | p | es | ||
recovery_stage_a | 1st | 37 | 3.11 ± 1.21 | 36 | 3.14 ± 1.21 | 0.914 | -0.031 | ||
recovery_stage_a | 2nd | 20 | 3.27 ± 1.19 | -0.163 | 19 | 3.48 ± 1.19 | -0.350 | 0.573 | -0.218 |
recovery_stage_b | 1st | 37 | 17.95 ± 2.68 | 36 | 18.03 ± 2.68 | 0.896 | -0.040 | ||
recovery_stage_b | 2nd | 20 | 17.56 ± 2.59 | 0.187 | 19 | 18.56 ± 2.59 | -0.258 | 0.234 | -0.485 |
ras_confidence | 1st | 37 | 29.89 ± 5.02 | 36 | 30.94 ± 5.02 | 0.373 | -0.394 | ||
ras_confidence | 2nd | 20 | 30.21 ± 4.41 | -0.118 | 19 | 31.56 ± 4.39 | -0.231 | 0.339 | -0.507 |
ras_willingness | 1st | 37 | 11.92 ± 1.98 | 36 | 12.28 ± 1.98 | 0.442 | -0.343 | ||
ras_willingness | 2nd | 20 | 11.29 ± 1.74 | 0.603 | 19 | 12.12 ± 1.73 | 0.155 | 0.139 | -0.791 |
ras_goal | 1st | 37 | 17.49 ± 3.12 | 36 | 17.53 ± 3.12 | 0.955 | -0.023 | ||
ras_goal | 2nd | 20 | 16.57 ± 2.80 | 0.504 | 19 | 18.14 ± 2.79 | -0.339 | 0.083 | -0.866 |
ras_reliance | 1st | 37 | 12.97 ± 2.74 | 36 | 13.44 ± 2.74 | 0.464 | -0.356 | ||
ras_reliance | 2nd | 20 | 13.43 ± 2.34 | -0.342 | 19 | 14.51 ± 2.33 | -0.807 | 0.150 | -0.821 |
ras_domination | 1st | 37 | 10.51 ± 2.24 | 36 | 9.44 ± 2.24 | 0.045 | 0.677 | ||
ras_domination | 2nd | 20 | 9.88 ± 2.12 | 0.401 | 19 | 10.25 ± 2.12 | -0.509 | 0.590 | -0.233 |
symptom | 1st | 37 | 31.24 ± 9.81 | 36 | 29.22 ± 9.81 | 0.382 | 0.531 | ||
symptom | 2nd | 20 | 31.30 ± 8.03 | -0.016 | 19 | 28.58 ± 7.98 | 0.168 | 0.291 | 0.715 |
slof_work | 1st | 37 | 22.68 ± 4.92 | 36 | 22.75 ± 4.92 | 0.949 | -0.037 | ||
slof_work | 2nd | 20 | 21.95 ± 4.06 | 0.363 | 19 | 21.46 ± 4.04 | 0.648 | 0.704 | 0.248 |
slof_relationship | 1st | 37 | 25.51 ± 5.95 | 36 | 25.94 ± 5.95 | 0.758 | -0.147 | ||
slof_relationship | 2nd | 20 | 24.46 ± 5.12 | 0.361 | 19 | 25.54 ± 5.09 | 0.139 | 0.511 | -0.369 |
satisfaction | 1st | 37 | 19.22 ± 6.93 | 36 | 22.14 ± 6.93 | 0.075 | -0.754 | ||
satisfaction | 2nd | 20 | 19.96 ± 6.15 | -0.193 | 19 | 21.69 ± 6.13 | 0.116 | 0.383 | -0.445 |
mhc_emotional | 1st | 37 | 10.70 ± 3.80 | 36 | 11.61 ± 3.80 | 0.311 | -0.518 | ||
mhc_emotional | 2nd | 20 | 11.19 ± 3.22 | -0.276 | 19 | 10.95 ± 3.21 | 0.377 | 0.818 | 0.136 |
mhc_social | 1st | 37 | 15.16 ± 5.65 | 36 | 14.75 ± 5.65 | 0.756 | 0.140 | ||
mhc_social | 2nd | 20 | 16.25 ± 4.93 | -0.367 | 19 | 14.24 ± 4.91 | 0.172 | 0.207 | 0.678 |
mhc_psychological | 1st | 37 | 21.76 ± 6.38 | 36 | 22.64 ± 6.38 | 0.556 | -0.264 | ||
mhc_psychological | 2nd | 20 | 22.40 ± 5.57 | -0.193 | 19 | 21.62 ± 5.54 | 0.304 | 0.663 | 0.233 |
resilisnce | 1st | 37 | 16.32 ± 4.35 | 36 | 16.83 ± 4.35 | 0.618 | -0.216 | ||
resilisnce | 2nd | 20 | 16.48 ± 3.83 | -0.068 | 19 | 17.38 ± 3.81 | -0.234 | 0.464 | -0.382 |
social_provision | 1st | 37 | 13.30 ± 3.00 | 36 | 14.03 ± 3.00 | 0.301 | -0.398 | ||
social_provision | 2nd | 20 | 12.36 ± 2.73 | 0.511 | 19 | 14.00 ± 2.72 | 0.013 | 0.062 | -0.896 |
els_value_living | 1st | 37 | 16.65 ± 2.91 | 36 | 17.89 ± 2.91 | 0.073 | -0.848 | ||
els_value_living | 2nd | 20 | 16.92 ± 2.52 | -0.188 | 19 | 17.97 ± 2.51 | -0.054 | 0.197 | -0.714 |
els_life_fulfill | 1st | 37 | 11.81 ± 3.09 | 36 | 13.75 ± 3.09 | 0.009 | -1.219 | ||
els_life_fulfill | 2nd | 20 | 12.73 ± 2.69 | -0.576 | 19 | 13.76 ± 2.67 | -0.009 | 0.230 | -0.652 |
els | 1st | 37 | 28.46 ± 5.39 | 36 | 31.64 ± 5.39 | 0.014 | -1.273 | ||
els | 2nd | 20 | 29.63 ± 4.57 | -0.467 | 19 | 31.74 ± 4.55 | -0.040 | 0.151 | -0.846 |
social_connect | 1st | 37 | 27.95 ± 9.53 | 36 | 26.33 ± 9.53 | 0.472 | 0.438 | ||
social_connect | 2nd | 20 | 28.70 ± 7.80 | -0.206 | 19 | 26.15 ± 7.74 | 0.051 | 0.307 | 0.694 |
shs_agency | 1st | 37 | 13.84 ± 4.93 | 36 | 15.06 ± 4.93 | 0.295 | -0.484 | ||
shs_agency | 2nd | 20 | 14.13 ± 4.28 | -0.115 | 19 | 15.80 ± 4.26 | -0.296 | 0.224 | -0.664 |
shs_pathway | 1st | 37 | 16.11 ± 3.94 | 36 | 17.00 ± 3.94 | 0.337 | -0.465 | ||
shs_pathway | 2nd | 20 | 16.48 ± 3.38 | -0.194 | 19 | 16.98 ± 3.37 | 0.009 | 0.643 | -0.262 |
shs | 1st | 37 | 29.95 ± 8.37 | 36 | 32.06 ± 8.37 | 0.285 | -0.527 | ||
shs | 2nd | 20 | 30.61 ± 7.15 | -0.165 | 19 | 32.79 ± 7.11 | -0.184 | 0.341 | -0.545 |
esteem | 1st | 37 | 12.86 ± 1.41 | 36 | 12.47 ± 1.41 | 0.237 | 0.323 | ||
esteem | 2nd | 20 | 13.02 ± 1.40 | -0.126 | 19 | 12.80 ± 1.40 | -0.273 | 0.635 | 0.176 |
mlq_search | 1st | 37 | 14.84 ± 3.37 | 36 | 15.03 ± 3.37 | 0.810 | -0.086 | ||
mlq_search | 2nd | 20 | 14.44 ± 3.13 | 0.179 | 19 | 14.99 ± 3.12 | 0.016 | 0.583 | -0.249 |
mlq_presence | 1st | 37 | 13.41 ± 4.04 | 36 | 13.53 ± 4.04 | 0.897 | -0.051 | ||
mlq_presence | 2nd | 20 | 13.32 ± 3.65 | 0.034 | 19 | 13.65 ± 3.64 | -0.052 | 0.778 | -0.137 |
mlq | 1st | 37 | 28.24 ± 6.71 | 36 | 28.56 ± 6.71 | 0.843 | -0.075 | ||
mlq | 2nd | 20 | 27.77 ± 6.13 | 0.115 | 19 | 28.64 ± 6.11 | -0.020 | 0.657 | -0.210 |
empower | 1st | 37 | 19.08 ± 4.00 | 36 | 19.92 ± 4.00 | 0.375 | -0.443 | ||
empower | 2nd | 20 | 18.83 ± 3.41 | 0.134 | 19 | 19.25 ± 3.39 | 0.353 | 0.699 | -0.224 |
ismi_resistance | 1st | 37 | 14.32 ± 2.50 | 36 | 14.89 ± 2.50 | 0.338 | -0.303 | ||
ismi_resistance | 2nd | 20 | 14.50 ± 2.40 | -0.093 | 19 | 14.76 ± 2.40 | 0.070 | 0.737 | -0.139 |
ismi_discrimation | 1st | 37 | 12.22 ± 3.13 | 36 | 10.36 ± 3.13 | 0.013 | 1.137 | ||
ismi_discrimation | 2nd | 20 | 11.71 ± 2.73 | 0.312 | 19 | 10.78 ± 2.72 | -0.259 | 0.292 | 0.566 |
sss_affective | 1st | 37 | 10.43 ± 3.68 | 36 | 9.44 ± 3.68 | 0.255 | 0.606 | ||
sss_affective | 2nd | 20 | 10.66 ± 3.09 | -0.139 | 19 | 8.58 ± 3.08 | 0.530 | 0.038 | 1.275 |
sss_behavior | 1st | 37 | 10.27 ± 3.76 | 36 | 8.92 ± 3.76 | 0.128 | 0.671 | ||
sss_behavior | 2nd | 20 | 10.02 ± 3.31 | 0.123 | 19 | 8.19 ± 3.29 | 0.361 | 0.086 | 0.909 |
sss_cognitive | 1st | 37 | 8.59 ± 3.88 | 36 | 8.00 ± 3.88 | 0.515 | 0.362 | ||
sss_cognitive | 2nd | 20 | 9.62 ± 3.23 | -0.626 | 19 | 7.20 ± 3.21 | 0.487 | 0.021 | 1.475 |
sss | 1st | 37 | 29.30 ± 10.53 | 36 | 26.36 ± 10.53 | 0.237 | 0.701 | ||
sss | 2nd | 20 | 30.37 ± 8.66 | -0.257 | 19 | 24.04 ± 8.60 | 0.555 | 0.024 | 1.513 |
Between group
recovery_stage_a
1st
t(100.54) = 0.11, p = 0.914, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-0.53 to 0.59)
2st
t(107.40) = 0.56, p = 0.573, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.54 to 0.97)
recovery_stage_b
1st
t(97.20) = 0.13, p = 0.896, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-1.16 to 1.32)
2st
t(107.39) = 1.20, p = 0.234, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-0.65 to 2.64)
ras_confidence
1st
t(82.87) = 0.89, p = 0.373, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-1.29 to 3.39)
2st
t(107.44) = 0.96, p = 0.339, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (-1.44 to 4.15)
ras_willingness
1st
t(82.63) = 0.77, p = 0.442, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.57 to 1.28)
2st
t(107.35) = 1.49, p = 0.139, Cohen d = -0.79, 95% CI (-0.27 to 1.93)
ras_goal
1st
t(85.43) = 0.06, p = 0.955, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-1.41 to 1.49)
2st
t(107.95) = 1.75, p = 0.083, Cohen d = -0.87, 95% CI (-0.21 to 3.34)
ras_reliance
1st
t(80.65) = 0.74, p = 0.464, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.80 to 1.75)
2st
t(106.16) = 1.45, p = 0.150, Cohen d = -0.82, 95% CI (-0.40 to 2.57)
ras_domination
1st
t(93.03) = -2.04, p = 0.045, Cohen d = 0.68, 95% CI (-2.11 to -0.03)
2st
t(107.60) = 0.54, p = 0.590, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.98 to 1.71)
symptom
1st
t(76.98) = -0.88, p = 0.382, Cohen d = 0.53, 95% CI (-6.60 to 2.55)
2st
t(100.51) = -1.06, p = 0.291, Cohen d = 0.72, 95% CI (-7.81 to 2.37)
slof_work
1st
t(77.55) = 0.06, p = 0.949, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-2.22 to 2.37)
2st
t(101.82) = -0.38, p = 0.704, Cohen d = 0.25, 95% CI (-3.07 to 2.08)
slof_relationship
1st
t(80.95) = 0.31, p = 0.758, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-2.34 to 3.20)
2st
t(106.41) = 0.66, p = 0.511, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-2.16 to 4.32)
satisfaction
1st
t(84.28) = 1.80, p = 0.075, Cohen d = -0.75, 95% CI (-0.30 to 6.15)
2st
t(107.81) = 0.88, p = 0.383, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (-2.18 to 5.62)
mhc_emotional
1st
t(79.68) = 1.02, p = 0.311, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (-0.86 to 2.68)
2st
t(105.21) = -0.23, p = 0.818, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-2.28 to 1.80)
mhc_social
1st
t(82.41) = -0.31, p = 0.756, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-3.04 to 2.22)
2st
t(107.26) = -1.27, p = 0.207, Cohen d = 0.68, 95% CI (-5.12 to 1.12)
mhc_psychological
1st
t(82.46) = 0.59, p = 0.556, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-2.09 to 3.85)
2st
t(107.28) = -0.44, p = 0.663, Cohen d = 0.23, 95% CI (-4.31 to 2.75)
resilisnce
1st
t(83.36) = 0.50, p = 0.618, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-1.52 to 2.53)
2st
t(107.60) = 0.73, p = 0.464, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-1.53 to 3.33)
social_provision
1st
t(87.19) = 1.04, p = 0.301, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-0.66 to 2.13)
2st
t(108.00) = 1.88, p = 0.062, Cohen d = -0.90, 95% CI (-0.09 to 3.37)
els_value_living
1st
t(81.46) = 1.82, p = 0.073, Cohen d = -0.85, 95% CI (-0.12 to 2.60)
2st
t(106.75) = 1.30, p = 0.197, Cohen d = -0.71, 95% CI (-0.55 to 2.64)
els_life_fulfill
1st
t(82.07) = 2.68, p = 0.009, Cohen d = -1.22, 95% CI (0.50 to 3.38)
2st
t(107.10) = 1.21, p = 0.230, Cohen d = -0.65, 95% CI (-0.67 to 2.74)
els
1st
t(79.77) = 2.52, p = 0.014, Cohen d = -1.27, 95% CI (0.67 to 5.69)
2st
t(105.31) = 1.45, p = 0.151, Cohen d = -0.85, 95% CI (-0.78 to 5.01)
social_connect
1st
t(76.93) = -0.72, p = 0.472, Cohen d = 0.44, 95% CI (-6.06 to 2.83)
2st
t(100.40) = -1.03, p = 0.307, Cohen d = 0.69, 95% CI (-7.50 to 2.38)
shs_agency
1st
t(81.85) = 1.05, p = 0.295, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-1.08 to 3.51)
2st
t(106.98) = 1.22, p = 0.224, Cohen d = -0.66, 95% CI (-1.04 to 4.38)
shs_pathway
1st
t(80.74) = 0.97, p = 0.337, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-0.95 to 2.73)
2st
t(106.24) = 0.46, p = 0.643, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-1.64 to 2.65)
shs
1st
t(80.43) = 1.08, p = 0.285, Cohen d = -0.53, 95% CI (-1.79 to 6.01)
2st
t(105.97) = 0.96, p = 0.341, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (-2.35 to 6.71)
esteem
1st
t(103.43) = -1.19, p = 0.237, Cohen d = 0.32, 95% CI (-1.05 to 0.26)
2st
t(107.54) = -0.48, p = 0.635, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-1.10 to 0.68)
mlq_search
1st
t(89.79) = 0.24, p = 0.810, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-1.38 to 1.76)
2st
t(107.86) = 0.55, p = 0.583, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-1.43 to 2.53)
mlq_presence
1st
t(86.48) = 0.13, p = 0.897, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-1.76 to 2.00)
2st
t(108.00) = 0.28, p = 0.778, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-1.99 to 2.65)
mlq
1st
t(87.55) = 0.20, p = 0.843, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-2.81 to 3.44)
2st
t(107.99) = 0.45, p = 0.657, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-3.01 to 4.76)
empower
1st
t(80.10) = 0.89, p = 0.375, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (-1.03 to 2.70)
2st
t(105.66) = 0.39, p = 0.699, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-1.74 to 2.58)
ismi_resistance
1st
t(95.70) = 0.96, p = 0.338, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.60 to 1.73)
2st
t(107.44) = 0.34, p = 0.737, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-1.27 to 1.79)
ismi_discrimation
1st
t(82.35) = -2.53, p = 0.013, Cohen d = 1.14, 95% CI (-3.31 to -0.40)
2st
t(107.23) = -1.06, p = 0.292, Cohen d = 0.57, 95% CI (-2.65 to 0.81)
sss_affective
1st
t(78.95) = -1.15, p = 0.255, Cohen d = 0.61, 95% CI (-2.70 to 0.73)
2st
t(104.28) = -2.10, p = 0.038, Cohen d = 1.27, 95% CI (-4.04 to -0.12)
sss_behavior
1st
t(83.07) = -1.54, p = 0.128, Cohen d = 0.67, 95% CI (-3.11 to 0.40)
2st
t(107.51) = -1.73, p = 0.086, Cohen d = 0.91, 95% CI (-3.93 to 0.26)
sss_cognitive
1st
t(78.21) = -0.65, p = 0.515, Cohen d = 0.36, 95% CI (-2.40 to 1.21)
2st
t(103.10) = -2.35, p = 0.021, Cohen d = 1.47, 95% CI (-4.47 to -0.38)
sss
1st
t(77.31) = -1.19, p = 0.237, Cohen d = 0.70, 95% CI (-7.84 to 1.97)
2st
t(101.30) = -2.29, p = 0.024, Cohen d = 1.51, 95% CI (-11.82 to -0.85)
Within treatment group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(53.08) = 1.16, p = 0.499, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.25 to 0.94)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(50.73) = 0.85, p = 0.800, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.72 to 1.78)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(42.73) = 0.73, p = 0.934, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-1.08 to 2.32)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(42.60) = -0.49, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-0.83 to 0.50)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(44.02) = 1.08, p = 0.570, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.53 to 1.76)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(41.62) = 2.55, p = 0.029, Cohen d = -0.81, 95% CI (0.22 to 1.91)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(48.16) = 1.66, p = 0.208, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (-0.17 to 1.78)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(39.84) = -0.53, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-3.10 to 1.82)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(40.12) = -2.03, p = 0.098, Cohen d = 0.65, 95% CI (-2.58 to -0.01)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(41.77) = -0.44, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-2.27 to 1.46)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(43.43) = -0.37, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-2.90 to 2.00)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(41.15) = -1.19, p = 0.482, Cohen d = 0.38, 95% CI (-1.79 to 0.46)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(42.50) = -0.54, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-2.38 to 1.37)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(42.52) = -0.96, p = 0.680, Cohen d = 0.30, 95% CI (-3.14 to 1.11)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(42.97) = 0.74, p = 0.923, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.94 to 2.05)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(44.93) = -0.04, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-1.18 to 1.13)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(42.02) = 0.17, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-0.85 to 1.01)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(42.33) = 0.03, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-1.00 to 1.03)
els
1st vs 2st
t(41.19) = 0.13, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-1.50 to 1.70)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(39.82) = -0.16, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-2.57 to 2.19)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(42.22) = 0.94, p = 0.708, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.86 to 2.35)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(41.67) = -0.03, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-1.24 to 1.21)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(41.52) = 0.58, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-1.83 to 3.30)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(55.51) = 0.92, p = 0.724, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.39 to 1.06)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(46.33) = -0.05, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-1.41 to 1.34)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(44.56) = 0.17, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-1.40 to 1.65)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(45.13) = 0.06, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-2.52 to 2.69)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(41.35) = -1.11, p = 0.544, Cohen d = 0.35, 95% CI (-1.87 to 0.54)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(49.77) = -0.23, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-1.27 to 1.01)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(42.47) = 0.82, p = 0.831, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.61 to 1.46)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(40.79) = -1.67, p = 0.206, Cohen d = 0.53, 95% CI (-1.91 to 0.18)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(42.82) = -1.15, p = 0.515, Cohen d = 0.36, 95% CI (-2.01 to 0.55)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(40.44) = -1.53, p = 0.269, Cohen d = 0.49, 95% CI (-1.86 to 0.26)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(40.00) = -1.74, p = 0.180, Cohen d = 0.55, 95% CI (-5.03 to 0.38)
Within control group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(52.58) = 0.55, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.42 to 0.74)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(50.31) = -0.63, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.19, 95% CI (-1.60 to 0.84)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(42.56) = 0.39, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.34 to 1.97)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(42.44) = -1.96, p = 0.113, Cohen d = 0.60, 95% CI (-1.28 to 0.02)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(43.82) = -1.65, p = 0.212, Cohen d = 0.50, 95% CI (-2.03 to 0.20)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(41.49) = 1.11, p = 0.548, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.37 to 1.28)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(47.82) = -1.34, p = 0.376, Cohen d = 0.40, 95% CI (-1.59 to 0.32)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(39.76) = 0.05, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-2.34 to 2.46)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(40.03) = -1.17, p = 0.501, Cohen d = 0.36, 95% CI (-1.98 to 0.53)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(41.64) = -1.17, p = 0.498, Cohen d = 0.36, 95% CI (-2.87 to 0.77)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(43.25) = 0.63, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-1.64 to 3.14)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(41.03) = 0.89, p = 0.755, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.61 to 1.58)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(42.34) = 1.19, p = 0.478, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-0.75 to 2.91)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(42.36) = 0.63, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-1.43 to 2.71)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(42.80) = 0.22, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-1.30 to 1.62)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(44.70) = -1.68, p = 0.200, Cohen d = 0.51, 95% CI (-2.06 to 0.19)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(41.88) = 0.61, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.63 to 1.19)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(42.17) = 1.87, p = 0.136, Cohen d = -0.58, 95% CI (-0.07 to 1.90)
els
1st vs 2st
t(41.07) = 1.51, p = 0.278, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-0.39 to 2.73)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(39.74) = 0.66, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-1.56 to 3.08)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(42.07) = 0.37, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.27 to 1.85)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(41.54) = 0.63, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.82 to 1.57)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(41.39) = 0.54, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-1.84 to 3.16)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(54.93) = 0.43, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.55 to 0.86)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(46.05) = -0.59, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-1.74 to 0.95)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(44.34) = -0.11, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-1.57 to 1.40)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(44.88) = -0.38, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-3.02 to 2.06)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(41.23) = -0.43, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-1.43 to 0.93)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(49.38) = 0.31, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-0.94 to 1.29)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(42.31) = -1.01, p = 0.633, Cohen d = 0.31, 95% CI (-1.52 to 0.50)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(40.69) = 0.45, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-0.80 to 1.25)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(42.66) = -0.40, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-1.50 to 1.00)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(40.34) = 2.01, p = 0.101, Cohen d = -0.63, 95% CI (-0.00 to 2.06)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(39.92) = 0.83, p = 0.828, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-1.56 to 3.71)